5 ms·

This musing about vaccine safety is quite obviously not some rigorous rationality, it is a simple dog-whistle to attract the rabid anti-vaxxers while not immedi

This musing about vaccine safety is quite obviously not some rigorous rationality, it is a simple dog-whistle to attract the rabid anti-vaxxers while not immediately alienating those who rightly view this as an unacceptable position. Vaccine safety is being tracked, and there is no indication whatsoever of any harm from vaccines except for mild symptoms immediately after injection and extremely rare more serious events. The research is done, there is nothing more to discuss. The latest anti-semitic accusation is also more serious than you make it out to be. He explicitly claims that Covid-19 affected Jewish people ("Ashkenazi Jews") and Chinese people less than others, and talks about that as "targeting". His exact words are that "there is an argument that Covid-19 was ethnically targeted", repeating that it is "targeted to affect Caucasian and Black individuals". He softens it a bit by saying that we don't know if it was deliberately targeted, but he then goes on to talk about how both the USA and the Chinese are working on ethnically-targeted bio weapons, so the implication is more than clear. I will say that it's not necessarily clear that he is being anti-semitic here, but he is clearly being sinophobic and very very clearly implying that Covid-19 was an ethnically-targeted Chinese bio-weapon, a preposterous claim.

globalreset 3y ago
You just take the most unfavorable interpretation of what he said and add some jumps to conclusion to arrive at what fits your pre-existing opinion.
- simiones 3y ago
  What is a more favorable interpretation of what he said? If he doesn't want to imply Covid-19 was a bio-weapon, why does he bring it up out of nowhere in the middle of some musings on bio-weapons? Why does he keep using the words "ethnically targeted" if he doesn't want to imply it was, well, ethnically targeted?
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    Wow! That's actual begging the question! The poster attempts to present evidence that credence should be high that China is able to, and would, make bioweapons that are ethnically targeted. At no point does he suggest they have already done so. That this is insufficient evidence for China's capabilities is likely the more reasonable discussion to have. I don't think they're there yet, and the lab leak from Wuhan shows they're still a bit sloppy in how they handle these things.
    - simiones 3y ago
      The discussion goes like this: 1. RFK Jr claims he has been doing research on bio weapons and he claims that the advancements in this area are mind-blowing 2. He then starts talking about how Covid-19 allegedly targeted certain groups less (Jewish and Chinese people), and certain others more (Caucasian and Black people). 3. He then says we don't know if it was intentionally targeted 4. He then goes back to talking about how both the USA and China supposedly have research programs into ethnically-targeted bio-weapons. The best possible interpretation of this is that he uses the Covid-19 example to only to show that a virus can affect certain populations more than others. However, he uses the word "targeted" for this, and explicitly mentions that it's possible that it was intentionally targeted [by someone]. So, the more plausible read is that he is implying Covid-19 may well be an example of such a bioweapon created by the Chinese to attack Caucasian and Black people. I will note that I am highly skeptical of his base claim that Covid-19 had some genetic preference for Caucasian and Black people. Any such claim is highly suspect, since it typically conflates ethnicity with genetics without actually doing any actual genetic testing to check. While it is of course true that there are certain genetic differences between ethnic groups, there are also huge social and behavioral and wealth differences between all such groups, which can also explain differences in disease outcomes. Also, especially when looking at these groups inside of multi-ethnic countries like the USA, the exact genetics of any specific individual may or may not match the general group genetics, since they have different heritability, and inter-group marriages are common. Just because someone has inherited darker skin tones (and would thus be part of the ethnic group "Black people") doesn't mean they also inherited a predisposition to sickle-cell anemia, for example.
      - 3y ago
boondoggle16 3y ago
[flagged]
stainablesteel 3y ago
your response tells me everything though, you think one thing is "rightly viewed as an unacceptable position", neither nuance or complexity is allowed, my original paragraph spoke on tradeoffs, on nuance itself. if you don't address that then you yourself are dogwhistling, how are you better than the strawman you paint of RFK? regarding the anti-semetic bit, not only did you completely avoid the main point of what was being said by both RFK and me, which is the potential for ethnic targeting, you've quoted his statement yourself with "there is an argument...", its not "i support the idea that...". its like people can't even speak hypotheticals without baseless accusations coming around every corner, what's the point of dialogue if we act like this? let's just settle presidential elections in a wrestling ring.
- therealcamino 3y ago
  I think the issue is that the "I'm just asking questions!" technique is used to express opinions without taking responsibility for them. When anxiety-producing questions keep getting "asked" by a politician when they already have rigorous, data-backed answers, they are being used as a political tool, disguised as skepticism or genuine scientific inquiry.
  - stainablesteel 3y ago
    taking responsibility for a question? yeah that's ridiculous as a human being, you're allowed to have discussion on topics in order to flesh them out.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  There are questions where looking for nuance detracts rather than add to the conversation. The earth is round, there is no need for nuance there. Similarly, vaccines work and have been proven to be better than not getting vaccinated in every single case in the last, say, 20 years. Adding nuance to that only serves to muddy the waters. The same sort of thing happens with hypotheticals. Sure, they are important and not every hypothetical should be read as an affirmation. But then there are cases like OJ Simpsons "If I had done it" - where the hypothetical framing is such an obvious fig leaf that it's ridiculous to pretend. And saying "there's an argument that" in the middle of a discussion about bio weapons, bringing up highly disputable facts like the supposed ethnic differences in Covid-19 effects, and then not spending even another second to acknowledge that there is 0 evidence for this supposed hypothetical - that all brings it to a level where it's comical not to recognize what was actually being said.
eggy 3y ago
Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Memory-holing natural immunity was another. If you were engineering a virus to not affect one group, say Chinese, it doesn't mean another group may be unintendedly less affected too, say Ashkenazi Jews. Calling that racist would make genetic testing among Hassidic Jews for genetic predisposition to specific diseases before marrying and producing offspring, what? Science. Given the homogeneity of a large portion of the genetic makeup of China, the Han people, it would be easier to target other races than say it would for Americans to exclude the majority of its diverse population from an engineered virus. And if you truly believe bio-weapon research is not being done by most powerful nations you are naive.
lowkey 3y ago
Pfizer wanted a license to sell their COVID vaccine in India. The Indian government asked them for local clinical trials first. This should have been an easy win, prove the vaccine is safe and effective in a controlled trial and you can sell it into a market of 1.38 billion people. Pfizer declined. Why do you think that is? Let me give you a hint, here is the CEO of Pfizer admitting that he never took his own COVID vaccine. Isn’t that odd? [0] [0] https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1678719867975761920?s=46&t=Ykx7XWebsE1u53eLf-Xtfw https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1678719867975761920?s=46&...
- Timon3 3y ago
  Funny that your Twitter link happens to leave out when the Pfizer CEO made that comment. Initially all doses were supposed to the elderly and front-line workers. He mentions that the vaccine wasn't recommended for his group as he isn't a front-line worker. Do you have any evidence he still hasn't taken it?
  - lowkey 3y ago
    > Do you have any evidence he still hasn't taken it? No I don’t have any evidence he still hasn’t taken it. Do you have any evidence he has? I agree with your recall of the initial recommendation, but I also know how much pressure was put on me and many others outside that group to take the vaccine. I would have been prevented from flying to my home country or working for many companies had I not taken two doses of an experimental vaccine approved under emergency use authorization. I learned only recently that the CEO of the leading vaccine developer chose not to take it himself at the time. As a result, I feel I was mislead. When I read about the significant increase in all cause mortality among the vaccinated and learn that no trials were conducted related to fertility or pregnancy related side effects and consider that my wife and I were trying for a baby at that time, if I am being honest - I do feel like I was deceived.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      When was the video taken? If it was during the initial time, why do you use it as evidence that the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the vaccine? Why didn't you mention that, instead making it seem like the CEO hasn't taken the vaccine for other reasons than he literally stated in the video? And let's consider you were right, the Pfizer CEO doesn't trust the vaccine and still hasn't taken it. Why the hell would he ever admit he didn't take it? Why wouldn't he say "yeah, I took the first dose"?

globalreset 3y ago

You just take the most unfavorable interpretation of what he said and add some jumps to conclusion to arrive at what fits your pre-existing opinion.

simiones 3y ago
What is a more favorable interpretation of what he said? If he doesn't want to imply Covid-19 was a bio-weapon, why does he bring it up out of nowhere in the middle of some musings on bio-weapons? Why does he keep using the words "ethnically targeted" if he doesn't want to imply it was, well, ethnically targeted?
- slowmovintarget 3y ago
  Wow! That's actual begging the question! The poster attempts to present evidence that credence should be high that China is able to, and would, make bioweapons that are ethnically targeted. At no point does he suggest they have already done so. That this is insufficient evidence for China's capabilities is likely the more reasonable discussion to have. I don't think they're there yet, and the lab leak from Wuhan shows they're still a bit sloppy in how they handle these things.
  - simiones 3y ago
    The discussion goes like this: 1. RFK Jr claims he has been doing research on bio weapons and he claims that the advancements in this area are mind-blowing 2. He then starts talking about how Covid-19 allegedly targeted certain groups less (Jewish and Chinese people), and certain others more (Caucasian and Black people). 3. He then says we don't know if it was intentionally targeted 4. He then goes back to talking about how both the USA and China supposedly have research programs into ethnically-targeted bio-weapons. The best possible interpretation of this is that he uses the Covid-19 example to only to show that a virus can affect certain populations more than others. However, he uses the word "targeted" for this, and explicitly mentions that it's possible that it was intentionally targeted [by someone]. So, the more plausible read is that he is implying Covid-19 may well be an example of such a bioweapon created by the Chinese to attack Caucasian and Black people. I will note that I am highly skeptical of his base claim that Covid-19 had some genetic preference for Caucasian and Black people. Any such claim is highly suspect, since it typically conflates ethnicity with genetics without actually doing any actual genetic testing to check. While it is of course true that there are certain genetic differences between ethnic groups, there are also huge social and behavioral and wealth differences between all such groups, which can also explain differences in disease outcomes. Also, especially when looking at these groups inside of multi-ethnic countries like the USA, the exact genetics of any specific individual may or may not match the general group genetics, since they have different heritability, and inter-group marriages are common. Just because someone has inherited darker skin tones (and would thus be part of the ethnic group "Black people") doesn't mean they also inherited a predisposition to sickle-cell anemia, for example.
    - 3y ago

boondoggle16 3y ago

[flagged]

stainablesteel 3y ago

your response tells me everything though, you think one thing is "rightly viewed as an unacceptable position", neither nuance or complexity is allowed, my original paragraph spoke on tradeoffs, on nuance itself. if you don't address that then you yourself are dogwhistling, how are you better than the strawman you paint of RFK? regarding the anti-semetic bit, not only did you completely avoid the main point of what was being said by both RFK and me, which is the potential for ethnic targeting, you've quoted his statement yourself with "there is an argument...", its not "i support the idea that...". its like people can't even speak hypotheticals without baseless accusations coming around every corner, what's the point of dialogue if we act like this? let's just settle presidential elections in a wrestling ring.

therealcamino 3y ago
I think the issue is that the "I'm just asking questions!" technique is used to express opinions without taking responsibility for them. When anxiety-producing questions keep getting "asked" by a politician when they already have rigorous, data-backed answers, they are being used as a political tool, disguised as skepticism or genuine scientific inquiry.
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  taking responsibility for a question? yeah that's ridiculous as a human being, you're allowed to have discussion on topics in order to flesh them out.
tsimionescu 3y ago
There are questions where looking for nuance detracts rather than add to the conversation. The earth is round, there is no need for nuance there. Similarly, vaccines work and have been proven to be better than not getting vaccinated in every single case in the last, say, 20 years. Adding nuance to that only serves to muddy the waters. The same sort of thing happens with hypotheticals. Sure, they are important and not every hypothetical should be read as an affirmation. But then there are cases like OJ Simpsons "If I had done it" - where the hypothetical framing is such an obvious fig leaf that it's ridiculous to pretend. And saying "there's an argument that" in the middle of a discussion about bio weapons, bringing up highly disputable facts like the supposed ethnic differences in Covid-19 effects, and then not spending even another second to acknowledge that there is 0 evidence for this supposed hypothetical - that all brings it to a level where it's comical not to recognize what was actually being said.

eggy 3y ago

Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Memory-holing natural immunity was another. If you were engineering a virus to not affect one group, say Chinese, it doesn't mean another group may be unintendedly less affected too, say Ashkenazi Jews. Calling that racist would make genetic testing among Hassidic Jews for genetic predisposition to specific diseases before marrying and producing offspring, what? Science. Given the homogeneity of a large portion of the genetic makeup of China, the Han people, it would be easier to target other races than say it would for Americans to exclude the majority of its diverse population from an engineered virus. And if you truly believe bio-weapon research is not being done by most powerful nations you are naive.

lowkey 3y ago

Pfizer wanted a license to sell their COVID vaccine in India. The Indian government asked them for local clinical trials first. This should have been an easy win, prove the vaccine is safe and effective in a controlled trial and you can sell it into a market of 1.38 billion people. Pfizer declined. Why do you think that is? Let me give you a hint, here is the CEO of Pfizer admitting that he never took his own COVID vaccine. Isn’t that odd? [0] [0] https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1678719867975761920?s=46&t=Ykx7XWebsE1u53eLf-Xtfw https://twitter.com/wolsned/status/1678719867975761920?s=46&...

Timon3 3y ago
Funny that your Twitter link happens to leave out when the Pfizer CEO made that comment. Initially all doses were supposed to the elderly and front-line workers. He mentions that the vaccine wasn't recommended for his group as he isn't a front-line worker. Do you have any evidence he still hasn't taken it?
- lowkey 3y ago
  > Do you have any evidence he still hasn't taken it? No I don’t have any evidence he still hasn’t taken it. Do you have any evidence he has? I agree with your recall of the initial recommendation, but I also know how much pressure was put on me and many others outside that group to take the vaccine. I would have been prevented from flying to my home country or working for many companies had I not taken two doses of an experimental vaccine approved under emergency use authorization. I learned only recently that the CEO of the leading vaccine developer chose not to take it himself at the time. As a result, I feel I was mislead. When I read about the significant increase in all cause mortality among the vaccinated and learn that no trials were conducted related to fertility or pregnancy related side effects and consider that my wife and I were trying for a baby at that time, if I am being honest - I do feel like I was deceived.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    When was the video taken? If it was during the initial time, why do you use it as evidence that the Pfizer CEO hasn't taken the vaccine? Why didn't you mention that, instead making it seem like the CEO hasn't taken the vaccine for other reasons than he literally stated in the video? And let's consider you were right, the Pfizer CEO doesn't trust the vaccine and still hasn't taken it. Why the hell would he ever admit he didn't take it? Why wouldn't he say "yeah, I took the first dose"?